Maybe your terms need recalibration.
Wanting smaller government is "radical."
Believing that the deficit problem is mostly caused by a budget a trillion dollars larger (constant dollars) than it was ten years ago is "radical."
The idea that economic growth comes from private business activity and not wealth redistribution is "radical."
The idea that the Federal government has too much damn power over our lives is "radical."
Heck, we already have people on record here stating that nationalizing our entire health care system is a "moderate" position.
A liberal looks at that political ad and wonders how any sane person couldn't think an income tax for Texas was not a brilliant idea. Maybe even a larger one than California has so that Texas can prosper like California is.
In case I'm not being clear enough, I don't accept your definition of "radical." Unless in our current environment, not being a socialist has become the "revolutionary" position.
In that case, make the most of it.
The Democrats took the national legislature at the beginning of 2007, and all the marbles at the beginning of 2009. The first electoral response to their ideas was in November of 2010. The second installment will be this fall.
Then I can sit and listen to the liberal rationalizations for the next few years. It will be amazing how many Americans suddenly became racists between 2008 and now.
Flame » in reply to I think you're evading the issue
"Radical??" Are you people even listening to yourselves?
The whole thread (37 posts)
- Getting serious for a moment.
- Re: Getting serious for a moment.
- As always, you totally ignore the substantive criticisms. n/t
- Re: Getting serious for a moment.